U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-01-2009, 07:15 AM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,398,653 times
Reputation: 106

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Romans 11 outlines how Israel has been cut off, but will eventually be grafted in. Romans 11:25-26 tells us "ALL Israel will be saved", but not until the FULLNESS of the gentiles comes in. That seems very URish to me.
A chosen set aside nation - Israel, and a chosen number of gentile believers to be "grafted" on. Looks very un-URish to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
No, of course not. There are indeed sheep and goats. Many are called, few are chosen. We are getting into a very broad area of UR here, you would do well to read some of the links and articles I've posted. These topics have been covered as well in these forums in many threads.

If you want to discuss this further, please read this article first as a starting point:
Merciful Truth - Eternity

And no complaining about article length - if you want to understand the truth of the matter it will take some effort on your part.
This would be an example of an unnecessarily wordy response. You would have been answering my question by stopping at: "No, of course not."

I've been up front about my ignorance with regard to the specifics of URism. Does this mean the discussion is over in the sense that no further questions are to be entertained?

I'm quite happy to get concise answers to my questions. If this is not possible, you could respond by saying that the short answer is X and then perhaps provide references for the long answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
NASB:
Isaiah 45:23"I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.
The NASB version of this verse does not contain the word "allegiance." This is a very significant, shall we say: Modification.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
If that is what you believe Calvinism teaches, you are sorely mistaken. Calvinists would never say all are elected. They maintain only the few who are saved are elected. The rest are specifically non-elect, and have been destined to not be saved.
You keep jumping out there to say that "Calvinism teaches" or "Calvinists would never say" yet never provide any Calvin quotes to back up your ignorant and uninformed assertions about what you believe Calvinism to be. Calvin was simply one among many of the reformers. Martin Luther, for example, has often been characterized (quite accurately in my opinion) as being more 'Calvinistic' than Calvin.

Reformed theology (which includes Calvin's teachings) asserts the elect as being the predestined elect and that God, by his sovereignty, has chosen the predestined elect to be the predestined elect. I agree with this view wholeheartedly and have made no assertions that militate against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I can see how with your analogy above, none are predestined to hell. But your analogy above is really what arminian's teach. Effectively salvation is offered to all, but some choose to "dine elsewhere". That is classical Arminian "free will" belief.

Honestly I think you have your terms confused (Arminian vs. Calvinism).
Again, I'm a simple layman - not a theologian. My understanding is that the Arminian asserts salvation as a cooperative effort between God and man. Basically, that man has some inherit ability to choose to do good by his/her own effort. This is not the reformed view - a view with which I also happen to agree.

The reformed view allows for man's limited free will. In certain instances, God permits mankind to choose to commit evil. God permits certain people to be in rebellion and "hands them over" to their own evil desires.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I fully agree predestination is in the scriptures. No where have I said I ignore it.
Nowhere do I assert that you ignore predestination - merely that ignoring it won't make it go away.

We both apparently agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I believe God has predestined all of our lots in lives - He is the one who makes some vessels for honor and others for destruction.
Agreed - keeping in mind that God is not the "author of evil."

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Yet God wills save all in the end.
"wills (to?) save" or "will(s?) save?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
1. God is sovereign in all matters.
Yes, keeping in mind that God is not the "author" of evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
2. We do not have "free will". See the free will thread for more on that - this is a huge topic.
Yes, the debate furiously continues. Have you read Luther's 'Bondage of the Will' by any chance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
3. God has predestined some to be elect, and the rest to be non-elect.
Then you agree with equal ultimacy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
The elect are true believers who will be made aware of God's plan in this life. They are saved in this life. The rest of the non-elect will not realize this until later. They will go through the lake of fire, which will bring them to Christ.
I appreciate you providing your belief concerning this. However, the scriptural support for this view that you have thus far provided is quite weak IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
4. This will eventually lead to a moment when every knee bows and confesses and swears allegiance to God (Isaiah 45:23).
The word 'allegiance' does not appear in this portion of scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Christ will make all alive, and defeat all enemies. The last enemy defeated is death. Then all are made subject to God and God will be all in all (1 Cor 15:22-28). God will indeed reconcile the world (Col 1:20).
The word 'eternal' in conjunction with the condemned does appear in scripture and would appear to militate against this view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
You haven't really told me what you believe yet. Are you more Arminian "free will" belief or Calvinist - God is sovereign in all - belief?
Have you visited my CD profile?

I agree with the reformed view - often also referred to as 'Calvinism."

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I know you said before you didn't like my "long" posts, but if you want to understand this you will need to do some digging on your own.
An excessive length and quantity of posts tends to add to confusion. I would like to avoid confusion if we can find a way to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
If you are happy believing that God allows or causes many people to be tormented for eternity, then you are probably not at a place yet where you will really study this on your own. But if in your heart you cannot understand why God would let billions fry forever, then maybe it is time to dig into this deeper. You could start by going back and looking at my posts #159, and #160 which you sort of glossed over. They covered Ephesians 1, Romans 5, and Col 1:16-20 specifically.
I'm not purposely "glossing over" your assertions. If I've missed specific points/assertions that you wish me to address, please bring them to my attention. As stated, the filibuster approach only adds to confusion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2009, 07:38 AM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,413,377 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
The NASB version of this verse does not contain the word "allegiance." This is a very significant, shall we say: Modification.

Did you actually read the NASB version? I quoted it verbatim. Here it is again, straight from biblegateway.com and it does contain the word allegiance:

Isaiah 45:23"I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

Other versions also have the word allegiance in there.

Quote:
You keep jumping out there to say that "Calvinism teaches" or "Calvinists would never say" yet never provide any Calvin quotes to back up your ignorant and uninformed assertions about what you believe Calvinism to be. Calvin was simply one among many of the reformers. Martin Luther, for example, has often been characterized (quite accurately in my opinion) as being more 'Calvinistic' than Calvin.
Read Arthur Pink, Jon Edwards, or John Piper. Or just go over to the Calvinist board at CARM.

Quote:
Reformed theology (which includes Calvin's teachings) asserts the elect as being the predestined elect and that God, by his sovereignty, has chosen the predestined elect to be the predestined elect. I agree with this view wholeheartedly and have made no assertions that militate against it.
And by implication those not predestined to be elect have been predestined to be non-elect. Simple logic... there is only two choices, elect or non-elect.

Quote:
Then you agree with equal ultimacy?
I'm not familiar with the term.

Quote:
[referring to Isaiah 45:23]
The word 'allegiance' does not appear in this portion of scripture.
Yes it does.

Quote:
The word 'eternal' in conjunction with the condemned does appear in scripture and would appear to militate against this view.
The word 'eternal' is a mistranslation in most bible versions we have. Read this link as a starting point to understand this:
Merciful Truth - Eternity

Much more info is here:
Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism

Quote:
I'm not purposely "glossing over" your assertions. If I've missed specific points/assertions that you wish me to address, please bring them to my attention. As stated, the filibuster approach only adds to confusion.
Not sure what you mean by the "filibuster approach", but you didn't respond to my posts #159 and #160 above. Please feel free to ask more questions.

BTW when I'm talking about "Calvinism", I'm not just specifically talking about what Calvin believed, but also the whole reformed movement - people like Arthur Pink, Jon Edwards, John Piper, Paul Washer, etc. Now I agree with alot of what they say, specifically with regards to God's sovereignty. But they seem to miss the boat on God's love.

For example Paul Washer has said that God would still be loving and still be just if He saved no one. Again I ask the simple question, if God makes this whole creation and purposes them all for eternal torment, how is that loving??? If you don't agree with Paul Washer's sentiment, then fine, I am glad for that.

Jon Edwards has said that God makes the reprobate non-elect so for His own glory. Do you agree with that?

Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 07:56 AM
 
Location: East Coast
30,282 posts, read 20,021,700 times
Reputation: 2110
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
But they seem to miss the boat on God's love.
Which is pretty amazing considering God is Love and it's the biggest boat out there . They are on the wrong boat without doubt and need to jump ship .

Last edited by pcamps; 11-01-2009 at 08:21 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Prattville, Alabama
4,883 posts, read 5,123,582 times
Reputation: 807
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post

...keeping in mind that God is not the "author of evil."

Yes, keeping in mind that God is not the "author" of evil.
Isa 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being (good) and creating calamity (evil);
I am the LORD who does all these.


Hmmm...according to scripture God most definitely is the author of evil. Who do you believe the "author of evil" is if not God?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 07:05 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,398,653 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Did you actually read the NASB version? I quoted it verbatim. Here it is again, straight from biblegateway.com and it does contain the word allegiance:

Isaiah 45:23"I have sworn by Myself,
The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness
And will not turn back,
That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.

Other versions also have the word allegiance in there.
My apologies, the word "allegiance" does appear in the NASB.

I would be curious to see how this verse translates from the old Hebrew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Read Arthur Pink, Jon Edwards, or John Piper. Or just go over to the Calvinist board at CARM.
This does nothing to clear up the apparent dilemma. You assert that the reformed view equates to equal ultimacy. Which reformers asserted equal ultimacy? Do you have quotes? If not, I can only conclude that you are purposely misrepresenting or are ignorant of the reformed view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
And by implication those not predestined to be elect have been predestined to be non-elect. Simple logic... there is only two choices, elect or non-elect.
You keep repeating this line over and over like some sort of mindless parrot. I have provided a "simple" and logical alternative. Your intent to purposely ignore this is most certainly disingenuous at best - or at worse, equates to outright dishonesty. If you cannot explain why my alternative is illogical then, to be honest, you must at least acknowledge its viability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
I'm not familiar with the term.
Cop out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Yes it does.
Yes, it does indeed. Again, my apologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
The word 'eternal' is a mistranslation in most bible versions we have. Read this link as a starting point to understand this:
Merciful Truth - Eternity

Much more info is here:
Scholar's Corner: The Center for Bible studies in Christian Universalism
But I suppose there is absolutely no chance that the word "allegiance" is a "mistranslation."

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Not sure what you mean by the "filibuster approach", but you didn't respond to my posts #159 and #160 above. Please feel free to ask more questions.
Post #159 and #160 are very apt illustrations of your filibuster approach - exceedingly wordy and back to back. Which specific assertions in these posts do you wish me to address?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
BTW when I'm talking about "Calvinism", I'm not just specifically talking about what Calvin believed, but also the whole reformed movement - people like Arthur Pink, Jon Edwards, John Piper, Paul Washer, etc. Now I agree with alot of what they say, specifically with regards to God's sovereignty. But they seem to miss the boat on God's love.
Let's keep it simple. From my perspective, if Calvin and Luther didn't teach it - it isn't the reformed view. To my knowledge, Calvin and Luther didn't teach equal ultimacy or hyper-Calvinism. However, you seem to be very much in the know. Feel free to correct me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
For example Paul Washer has said that God would still be loving and still be just if He saved no one.
If you've quoted Washer accurately, I agree with this.

God very lovingly determined, by his grace, to provide a savior. Grace cannot be grace unless it's voluntary. - Simple logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Again I ask the simple question, if God makes this whole creation and purposes them all for eternal torment, how is that loving???
It isn't loving. Who, besides you, is making such an absurd and ridiculous assertion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
If you don't agree with Paul Washer's sentiment, then fine, I am glad for that.
I apparently do agree, so what about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Jon Edwards has said that God makes the reprobate non-elect so for His own glory. Do you agree with that?

Is God Less Glorious Because He Ordained that Evil Be? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
If the quote is accurate, yes. God creates all life. This logically means that he has created creatures that he knew would make the decision to be reprobates. He did this for his own ultimate glory. Scripture clearly illustrates how God uses evil to ultimately serve good purposes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 07:21 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,398,653 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristyGrl View Post
Isa 45:7 The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being (good) and creating calamity (evil);
I am the LORD who does all these.


Hmmm...according to scripture God most definitely is the author of evil. Who do you believe the "author of evil" is if not God?
Job 34:10 So listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do evil, from the Almighty to do wrong.

There is a vast difference between creating a place where creatures have the ability to formulate evil intentions and commit evil - as opposed to actually creating evil. Simple logic. There is also such a thing as a good calamity or, in other words, an evil calamity that God uses in order to serve good purposes.

To answer your question: According to scripture, it is God's creatures, possessing the ability to do evil, that actually "birth" evil.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 10:07 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,413,377 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
This does nothing to clear up the apparent dilemma. You assert that the reformed view equates to equal ultimacy. Which reformers asserted equal ultimacy? Do you have quotes? If not, I can only conclude that you are purposely misrepresenting or are ignorant of the reformed view.
Tiget, I had never looked at the term "equal ultimacy" before, so you telling me its a "cop out" because I'm unfamiliar with the term, doesn't really help the discussion here. I just looked it up on wikipedia now, I suppose that is what I believe Calvinism boils down to. I don't know all the nuances of the term.

Here is what I understand Calvinism teaches: God predestines some to be saved and leaves the rest to go to hell. Is that what you believe?

Now, I don't see any difference between that and this: God predestines some to be saved and predestines the rest to go to hell.

If you think there is a difference, please explain it to me.


Quote:
You keep repeating this line over and over like some sort of mindless parrot. I have provided a "simple" and logical alternative. Your intent to purposely ignore this is most certainly disingenuous at best - or at worse, equates to outright dishonesty. If you cannot explain why my alternative is illogical then, to be honest, you must at least acknowledge its viability.
Now you are resorting to insults of being a mindless parrot? Sigh. I'm not sure this conversation is really worth the trouble now. Sadly I have seen this behavior from other Calvinists before.

Then you accuse me of being disingenous or dishonest. On top of that you don't want to read my posts because they are too wordy. It seems to me you are just accusing me (ad hom) instead of just addressing the arguments.

Anyway I believe your alternative was this: all are elected, but only some choose to come?!?!? That is not Calvinism. That is not the reformed view. Your argument is inconsistent with scripture and with your stated views.

Quote:
But I suppose there is absolutely no chance that the word "allegiance" is a "mistranslation."
It is possible, but the greek doesn't suggest it as far as I can see. You really should research the "aion"/"eternal" mistranslation issue though. It is staggering. There have been threads in the past that covered this. It is a big topic so I would recommend starting another thread if you want to discuss it.

Quote:
Post #159 and #160 are very apt illustrations of your filibuster approach - exceedingly wordy and back to back. Which specific assertions in these posts do you wish me to address?
And your approach is simply to not address certain things at all it seems. You asked which books/chapters preach universal salvation, and I told you in post #159. Then no response from you.

You asked which verse says all will swear allegiance, I told you, you denied it in error, I showed you again, and you finally acknowledged it at least, but no real response on that issue either (other than acknowledgment).

So do I take it you now agree that all will swear allegiance to Christ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2009, 10:19 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,413,377 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
Let's keep it simple. From my perspective, if Calvin and Luther didn't teach it - it isn't the reformed view. To my knowledge, Calvin and Luther didn't teach equal ultimacy or hyper-Calvinism. However, you seem to be very much in the know. Feel free to correct me.

OK this is what I am maybe misunderstanding about Calvinism. Here is your chance to educate me Tigetmax.

I said: For example Paul Washer has said that God would still be loving and still be just if He saved no one.
You replied: If you've quoted Washer accurately, I agree with this.

I said: Again I ask the simple question, if God makes this whole creation and purposes them all for eternal torment, how is that loving???
You replied: It isn't loving. Who, besides you, is making such an absurd and ridiculous assertion?

OK now I am confused.

Here are the two statements, simplified:

1. If God saves no one, God is still loving
2. If God predestines all people to eternal torment, God is still loving

These statements are saying the same thing!

Yet it seems you agree with statement #1 but not statement #2.

Please explain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 07:00 PM
 
Location: East Coast U.S.
1,513 posts, read 1,398,653 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Tiget, I had never looked at the term "equal ultimacy" before, so you telling me its a "cop out" because I'm unfamiliar with the term, doesn't really help the discussion here. I just looked it up on wikipedia now, I suppose that is what I believe Calvinism boils down to. I don't know all the nuances of the term.

Here is what I understand Calvinism teaches: God predestines some to be saved and leaves the rest to go to hell. Is that what you believe?

Now, I don't see any difference between that and this: God predestines some to be saved and predestines the rest to go to hell.

If you think there is a difference, please explain it to me
.
As many times as I've posted the term 'equal ultimacy' and your just now getting around to investigating it - I would say that definitely qualifies as a cop out.

Here is a reprint from post #124:

"The hyper-Calvinist and those holding to equal ultimacy would agree with this (your misinformed view of Calvinism) - I don't."

This is what is known in logic as a false premise. Another possible answer is that those going to hell are volunteering to go to hell. Did God foreknow that those going to hell would volunteer to go to hell? Yes. Did God cause them to go to hell, want them to go to hell, or create them for the express purpose of going to hell? No."

and from post #169:

"Yes, back to the OP and the false premise which you refuse to see as a false premise. How about this analogy: Two people in the room are invited to have lunch. One accepts the invite and the other chooses to dine elsewhere. Both are invited (elected) but one decides to refuse (not run for election).

You keep asserting that this notion is illogical. If that is still your assertion, please explain."

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Now you are resorting to insults of being a mindless parrot? Sigh. I'm not sure this conversation is really worth the trouble now. Sadly I have seen this behavior from other Calvinists before.
As you can see, I've been trying to get you to address this for some time. I do try to avoid that ad hominem if at all possible.

I wouldn't take it too hard - my guess is that we've both been called much worse before in this forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman View Post
Then you accuse me of being disingenous or dishonest. On top of that you don't want to read my posts because they are too wordy. It seems to me you are just accusing me (ad hom) instead of just addressing the arguments.
Not quite. The qualifier is that you would prove to be disingenuous or dishonest if you fail to address my alternative view to your "predestination to hell."


{Sorry, out of time for tonight}
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2009, 10:04 PM
 
6,221 posts, read 6,413,377 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24 View Post
As many times as I've posted the term 'equal ultimacy' and your just now getting around to investigating it - I would say that definitely qualifies as a cop out.
Ok sorry I guess I just missed it before. Should I say you are "copping out" if you haven't read any of the links I've posted yet? Have you started investigating the scriptures that point to Christian universalism in all the articles I pointed to you yet?

You probably understand there are only so many hours in the day, so both you and I might not be able to immediately investigate every unfamiliar idea.


Quote:
As you can see, I've been trying to get you to address this for some time. I do try to avoid that ad hominem if at all possible.

I wouldn't take it too hard - my guess is that we've both been called much worse before in this forum.
No problem. I think sometimes people get frustrated at the limitations in communicating this way, I know I do. Basically: ask a question, wait a day for an answer, and then its not really an answer you were expecting or the direction you were going, etc. so ask another question, get a different answer a day later... it takes a while to tread through an issue that way. Especially when two people have different ideas on a topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top